The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Commission Packet - March 18, 2004CITY OF CEN'I'12AL POINT SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGF,NDA March~~l8, 2004 - 7nn00 p.m. ~+i ~ @i Next Plaiming Commission Resolution No. 610 I. MEF,TING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland ,Christopher Brown, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Paul Lunte, Connie Moczygemba, and Wayne Riggs III. CORRESPONDENCE N. MINUTES A. Review and approval of March 2, 2004, and March 18, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes will be on the March 30, 2004 Agenda VL PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS A. The first of two Quasi-Judicial public hearings to review an application for a proposed Site Plan application for the proposed Retail Pear Blossom Plaza (W al-Mart Supercenter). The subject parcel is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W 02D Tax Lot 100 in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district and is located at the northwest corner of East Pine Street and Hamrick Road. Pages 1-58 Attachment `J' Paged -150 VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Pc03182004 Attachment `A' DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPAR~IE COVER COPIES ARE AUAILAI3LE 1=~OR PUBLIC REVIEW AT CITY HALL FIOUI~S: MONDAY -FRIDAY 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAP'r REPORT MEETING DATE: March 18, 2004 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Site Plan Application and Land Partition for the Proposed Retail Pear Blossom Plaza Applicant: PACLAND 10121 SE Sunnyside Road, Suite 215 Clackamas, Oregon 97015 O~rner: Norcross East, LLC P.O. Sox 996 Medford, Oregon 97501 Proper Description/ 37 2W 02D, Tax Lot 100 - 21.6 acres Zoning: C-4, Tourist and Office Professional Zoning District Summary The applicant, PACLAND has requested a Site Plan Review and minor partition to facilitate the construction of a 203,091 square foot (combination) general merchandise-grocery store, a 10,200 square foot retail building and a 200 square foot coffee kiosk (refer to Exhibit A). This application has been forwarded to the Planning Commission because of its size, its potentially adverse characteristics and because it will involve making f ndings as to whether or not it is a permitted use the C-4 zone (Chapter 17.44.020 B.15). Because of the anticipated volume of testimony, the hearing for this proposal will take place on two evenings. The first hearing, covered by this staff report, is limited to two preliminary questions: (1) whether the proposed development is a "community shopping center, as described in CPMC 17.44.020(B)(15); and (2) whether the proposed development should be treated as a conditional use under CPMC 17.44.030(A)(20)because it "exhibits potentially adverse or hazardous characteristics not normally found in uses of similar type and size." The second hearing, scheduled for March 30, 2004, will address the specifics of the proposal and its relation to the other criteria in the City's code. P1 At the March 18"'hearing, testimony and evidence should be directed at the two questions at issue. At the end of the first hearing, after receiving the evidence and testimony, Commission members should give direction to the staff regarding their views on the two questions, without reaching a final decision on the questions. A final decision on the two issues will be made at the same time the other issues are decided. Authority CPMC 1.24.020 and CPMC 17.44.030 (20) vest the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and to render a decision on any application submitted for Site Plan Review (when referred by City staff) and on any tentative plan application for land partition. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Attaclmrnent B). It should be pointed out that the City exercised its option to notice ten days ahead of the first planning commission meeting because two public meeting were planned. This was also necessitated because of processing time constraints. AnUlicablc Law CPMC 01.24.010 et seq -Public Hearing Procedures CPMC 16.10.010 et seq -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.44.010 et seq - C-4, Tourist and Office-Professional District CPMC 17.60.010 et seq -General Regulations CPMC 17.64.010 et seq -Off Street Parking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 et seq-Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval CPMC 17.76.010 et seq -Conditional Use Permits Background The applicant submitted their original proposal For site plan review and a three lot partition in June 2003. PACLAND determined that the Wal-Mart Super Center was a permitted use in the City's C-4 zoning district and therefore elected to initiate their application as a site plan. The Planning Department found that the application was incomplete until four things were provided including: 1) an internal floor plan to calculate net floor area; 2) a conditional use permit application to consider parking lot seasonal sales; 3) an amendment to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to address the regional displacement of traffic from the Highway 62 store closure; and 4) an economic impact analysis to aid the City in determining what affect a super store would have on the City's Downtown Revitalization efforts and existing businesses. The applicant produced the additional information requested by the City, made some changes to their application and delivered the revised proposal to City Hall on December 19, 2003. The revised application changed the Wal-Mart building orientation 180 degrees to face, rather tlmat back up to Bear Creek while keeping the parking in front of the building. The building elevations were enhanced and more architectural treatments were added. P2 Two landscaped walkways were introduced in the parking lot. A proposed fueling station was eliminated and one driveway from Hamrick Road was taken out of the site plan. The partition was then changed from three lots to two lots. The TIA prepared for the applicant is a short range, day-of-opening evaluation of the traffic generated from the proposed use and its impact upon the existing transportation system. The Commission is aware that the Planning Department has been working on a long range, cumulative (full build out) evaluation of traffic along the East Pine Street Corridor. The City has recognized the potential traffic problems along East Pine Street for some time and initiated the long range analysis in cooperation with ODOT, Jackson County and the property owners along the corridor. Unanticipated delayed have prevented the City from getting professional recommendations sooner but we expect to have the results from the East Pine Street analysis in time for the Commission's meeting on March 30th. This information is expected to give the Commission and City Council a better context in which to make decisions about individual developments along the corridor. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Determination of Permitted Use The Planning Commission when ruling upon this permitted use may find as follows; That the nronosed development does not meet the definition of a Community Shonnina Center and is. therefore, not a permitted use in the C-4 zone. CPMC 17.44.020.1 S permits "Community Shopping Centers" as an allowed use and defines a Community Shopping Center "as a group of commercial establishments planned, developed, owned or managed as a unit, which may include any of the permitted uses in this section and may also include [23 additional uses].."In its project narrative, the applicant describes its development as "a combination general merchandise-grocery store of 203,091 square feet, a retail building of 10,200 square feet and a 200 square foot coffee kiosk with drive through window." CPMC 17.44.020(B)(15) is not clear how many or what type of uses forma "group." City staff recommends that the Planning Commission not get caught in a debate about whether 3 shops or 4 shops constitute a "group". Instead, the critical question is whether the proposed development is a "shopping center." A 200,000 square foot building with an unconnected 10,000 square foot building and a 200 square foot "kiosk" does not constitute a shopping center. P3 This intezpretation is supported by the grouping that includes Community Shopping Centers. The allowed uses in the C-4 zone consist of three broad groups: "Professional and Financial," "Tourist and Entertainment-Related Facilities" and "Telecommunication Antennae Support Structures." The Cozmnunity Shopping Center is included as a "Tourist and Entertainment Related" facility. The single large store with one small store and x200 square foot kiosk does not fit in with either tourism or entertainment. CPMC 17.44.010 also describes the purpose of the C-4 zone as intending to allow for the "development of concentrated tourist commercial and entcrtaiumentfacilities." A W al-Mart Super Center is not typically directed to the tourist trade. This type of development is more appropriate in the C-5 zone, which is intended to "provide for commercial and business uses that are most appropriately located along or near major highways or thoroughfares and are largely dependent upon highway visibility and easy vehicular access." The proposed development could occur in the C-5 zone without being forced to add buildings in an effort to qualify as a shopping center. The concept of a true shopping center is supported by the previous approval granted for the Pear Blossom Center, which contained 14 separate uses onthis site, as well as the Mountain View (Albertsons) Plaza location, which was also allowed as a "Community Shopping Center." These types of facilities, with an anchor store and multiple complementary retail establishments more closely match the City's intent in allowing Community Shopping Centers in the C-4 zone. City Council action in the past has endorsed citizen expectations about `community scale' shopping centers. The Council adopted the Central Point Strategic Plan in 1998 which addresses the issue of growth and "encouraging appropriate srnall-scale industrial and commercial development." (Growth Goa12, Strategy 2D) Although not incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, the strategic plan maybe considered with other potentially relevant documents in arriving at a decision. A copy of the strategic plan can be found in Attachment I which includes the Citizen's Advisory Committee Agenda, dated March 17, 2004. .Site Plan processed as a Conditional Use In considering uses referred to the Commission by City staff the City bases it's decision on criteria from Section 17.44.030 (20); specifically thattheproposedpermitted usewas found to exhibit potentially adverse or hazardous charactezstics not normally found in uses of a similar type and size: The individual impact of the proposed super center exhibits adverse and hazardous characteristics not normally found in uses of similar type and size and accentua~d by its proximity to Interstate 5 Bear Creek and surrounding residential properties. ~ The Planning Department has received comments from other departments and agencies (Attachments C through H) that identify adverse and hazardous P4 characteristics ofthis proposal given its location relative to the I-5 interchange; the East Pine Street Corridor; Bear Creek; Central Point's Downtown and surrounding residential neighborhoods. The individual and cumulative impacts of the proposed super center exhibit adverse and hazardous traffic characteristics upon the I-5 Interchange, the East Pine Street Corridor and the subordinate circulation system in the City's urban growth boundary; ^ The Central Point Public Works Department (Attachment C) and JRH Transportation Engineers (Attachment D) agree that the proposed super center is being proposed at a location that is already congested and will become more so the day of opening. The ODOT Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit (TPAU) has determined that the proposed Wal-Mart will cause the north bound ramp terminal at Pine Street and the intersection at East Piue Street and Hamrick Road to fail on the day the super center opens (Attachment E). The City is awaiting the completion of an independent traffic analysis and Public Works advises that approval of any development on this site be conditioned to adhere to recommendations of the final East Pine Street Corridor analysis. The individual impact of the proposed super center exhibits adverse and hazardous storm water runoff and water quality characteristics to Bear Creek which is currently water quality limited and is a fish bearing stream. Additionally the proposed development In aces improvements and structures within or alters the 100 year flood plain associated with Bear Creek; ^ The Central Point Public Works Department finds that the addition of 18 acres of impervious surface at this location creates the following adverse and hazardous impacts; 1) increases the potential for flooding in Bear Creek; 2) introduces pollutants, such as oil and dirt from automobiles, directly into the creek and 3) increases the temperature of the water in Bear Creek. State DEQ, the Water Resources Program at RVCOG and ODF&W all agree with the City regarding the negative water quality impacts (Attachments F, G & l~. RVCOG technical staff has found that the lack of any storm water detention creates hazardous conditions for aquatic life downstream and they have estimated that the proposed development will increase runoff from the site by greater than a factor of five in a 10-year storm event. The individual impact of the proposed super center exhibits potentially adverse characteristics to Downtown businesses and to other shopping areas in Central Point not included in the applicant's economic analysis; ^ The economic and downtown impact analysis performed for the applicant was reviewed by Galardi Consulting who has done other work for the City of Central Point. Ms. Galardi reports that the Ferrarini study `never directly P5 addresses the potential impacts that the super center will have on businesses in the Downtown (i.e. pricing for cmuparable goods)'. She states that Ferrarini is willing to make the local stores ... alter their merchandise, prices and service levels ... to face Wal-Mart competitimr. The resulting change in product mix (merchandise) and hours of operation ma}~ have an adverse affect on small mom-and-pop businesses (see Attaclrrnent I). The individual impact of the proposed super center exhibits potentially adverse characteristics to the surrounding residential property owners; ^ The City has received extensive public comment about the super center which can be found in Attachment J. A variety of concerns have been expressed including, but not limited to; thepotential impact of large scale development on adjacent residential wells, the noise associated with the super center truck deliveries, light pollution, traffic congestion along Hamrick and at its Beebe Road intersection. Citizens argue that some of the uses associated with Wal- Mart are not individually permitted in the G4 zone and therefore Fvould be even less compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Give staff direction, without making a decision, on 1) whether the proposal should be considered a `permitted use' in the C-4 zoning district; and 2), ifthe proposal is a `permitted use', whether it should be processed as a `conditional use' under CPMC 17.76 because it is `found to exhibit potentially adverse or hazardous characteristics not normally found in uses of a similar type and size'; or Attachments A. PACLAND Application Package, dated December 17, 2003 B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Preliminary Public Works StaffReport and Recommendations, dated March 1Q 2004 D. Letter from JRH Transportation Engineers, dated March 8, 2004 E. Letter from ODOT, dated October 27, 2003 Responding to City Request for Wal- Mart Traffic Analysis F. Letter from RVCOG Water Resources Program, dated March 10, 2004 G. Letter from DEQ Water Quality Division, dated March 10, 2004 H. Email from ODF & W, dated March 11, 2004 I. Memorandum from Galardi Consulting, dated March 7, 2004 J. General Public Correspondence, received between September 2003 to March 2004, including minutes and testimony received at meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee held on February 11, 2004 and March 17, 2004. P6 Attachment `A' PACLA~ID Application Package Dated 12/ 17/2003 Attachment `Q' ~lotice of Public Hearing City of Central Point Legal Notice Planning Commission Notice of Public wearing Meeting Datets): March 18t" and March 30t", 2004 Time: 7:00 P.M. Place: Crater High School Student Center 4410 Rogue Valley Highway Central Point, Oregon 97502 NATURE OF MEETING: The Central Point Planning Commission will hold aQuasi-Judicial public hearing to receive public testimony.and consider arguments, regarding a site plan application and land partition for the proposed Retail Pear Blossom Plaza (Wal-Mart Supercenter). The subject parcel is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W02D, Tax Lot 100 in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district and is located at the northwest corner of East Pine Street and Hamrick Road. The March 18, 2004, hearing will be limited to the following two issues: (1) whether the proposed development is a "community shopping center, as described in CPMC 17.44.020(8)(15): and (2) whether the proposed development should be referred and treated as a conditional use under CPMC 17.44.030(A)(20) because it "exhibits potentially adverse or hazardous characteristics not normally found in uses of similar type and size." The March 30, 2004, hearing will focus on the specific criteria governing the proposal, as set forth below. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The proposed development is subject to the following: Central Point Municipal Code: 01.24, Public Hearing Procedures 16.10, Tentative Plans (all subsections) 17.44, C-4, Tourist and Office-Professional District (including subsections .010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070, and 080) 17.60, General Regulations (all subsections) 17.64, Off-Street Parking and Loading fall subsections) 17.72, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval fall subsections) 17.76, Conditional Use Permits fall subsections) OTHER POTENTIALLY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS Statewide Planning Coals Central Point Comprehensive Plan Central Point Transportation System Plan Central Point Strategic Plan Central Point Public Works Standards P7 PUBLIC COMMEt~'P 1. Any person interested in commenting on the proposed application, may file written comments, objections, or remonstrance's with the Planning Department prior to the time of the public hearing. The public will also be given an opportunity to express their opinions at the hearing. 2. Written comments may be filed at Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon 97502 3. All evidence relied upon by the Planning Commission in consideration of the application is available at no charge for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. A copy of the staff reports will be available 7 days prior to the meetings. Black and white copies of reports may be obtained at a cost of 15 cents per page. 4. Pursuant to ORS 197.763 (e) failure of an issue to be raised during the hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision makers an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the City Council or the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. 5. For additional information, the public may contact Tom Humphrey at the Central Point Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 230. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the public hearing, the Planning Commission will hear public testimony and receive written evidence which must be directed toward criteria described in the documents referenced above. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission may allow the application; allow the application with conditions or modifications or deny the application. APPEAL PROCESS A request for review may be made to the City Council from any decision, determination or requirement of the Planning Commission by filing a notice in writing with the City Administrator no more than seven days after the date the City mails or delivers its decision to the applicant. Such notice shall set forth in detail the action and the grounds upon which the person appealing deems himself aggrieved. P8 EE~II[_~1~~ ff~ll <~i ~~~ Subject L~ 11 \ esttzafwmaeerre+~ ?*aaaF, E F NE 5 ~ _.__ _.~ IC N h i I-1LLL1_LLIHOP-IfI~S.~I l_l~'l._1._J t~~~ ~~~,~~~j~ ~ \\ ~Z,\ {f~ I 1 "-v'if ~ _ ~' _J-~ S. iT Attachment `C' Preliminary Public Works Staff Report & Recommendations Dated: 03/10/2004 o~ itv of Central Point Public Works Department X20 • „m ~e , Robert Pierce Public {Parks Director PRELIMINARYPUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS TO Planning Commission FROM: Public Works Department Robert Pierce -Director Joe Strahl -City Engineer Chris Clayton -Deputy Director SUBJECT: Proposed Pear Blossom Retail Development (207,502 - Sq. Feet) Annlicant Pacland 10121 SE Sunnyside Road, Suite 215 Clackamas, Oregon 97015 Agent Pacland 10121 SE Sunnyside Road, Suite 215 Clackamas, Oregon 97015 PropertX/ 37S 2W 2D Tax Lot 100 (20.5 Acres) Zoning C-4 Tourism & Office Rick Bartlett Supervisor Chris Clayton Deputy Director Joe Stralil City Ertgir:eer Mike Orta Technician Greg Graves Teclrniciaer Karen Roeber Secretary !I Margarita Mur:oz Secretary I P10 Pem• Blossoxt Betail Deneiapnrest Public Works Staff Report Page #Z Pur ose The comments and recommendations contained in this Staff Report submitted for the March, 18"' Planning Commission is based on the information currently available. As relevant studies and analysis are completed and become available, the City of Central Point Public Works Department will provide additional recommendations and information regarding the proposed development. The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposal and to gather information from the Developer/Engineer. A City of Central Point Public Works Department Staff Report is not intended to replace the City's Standards & Specifications. Staff Reports are written in conjunction with the City's Standards & Specifications to form a useful guide. The City's Standards & Specifications should be consulted for any infornation not contained in a Public Works Staff Report. Standard Specifications and Goals The Central Point Public Works Department is charged with management of the City's infrastructure, including streets, waterworks, and storm water drainage facilities. In general, the Department's "Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction" shall govern how public facilities are to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Works Department. Central Point Public Works is committed to working with the Planning Department and developers to assure that all developments are adequately served by public facilities. Public facilities not owned or maintained by the City of Central Point include: Power (PP&L), Gas (Avista), Communications (Qwest), and Sanitary Sewer (RVSS). In working together it is the Department's expectation that the developer will feel free to call on the Department whenever the standard specifications are not, in the developer's opinion, adequately meeting the needs of the development. The Departrnent will listen to the developer's concerns and work with the developer to achieve the best outcome. However, the Department is not obligated to assure a profitable development and will not sacrifice quality, public safety, community standards or other concerns for the purpose of reducing cost to the developer. It is always the developer's obligation to provide the public improvements necessary, as determined by the Public Works Department, to serve the development. The Departrnent and the developer also have an obligation to assure that public facilities are constructed so that other properties are not adversely impacted by the development. P11 Pear B[ossani Retail Deve[npz»eut Public Works Staff Report Page #3 DevelopnzentPlazzs-Rerizzirerllz: orzuatiou Review of public improvement plans is initiated by the submittal of 3 sets of plans that are at a minimum 95% complete. The plans shall include those of other agencies such as BCVSA or Jackson County Roads Department. Following plan review, the plans will be returned to the Developer's engineer including comments from Public Works Staff. In order to be entitled to further review, the Applicant's Engineer must respond to each comment of the prior review. All submittals and responses to comments must appear throughout the plans to be a realistic attempt to result incomplete plan approval. Upon approval, the Applicant's Engineer shall submit (5) copies of the plans to the Department of Public Works. In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and profile for streets, water, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, storm drainage calculations, storm drainage basin map, erosion control plan, utility and outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a traffic control plan. Public Works Permit A Public Works Permit will only be issued after the Department Director approves the final construction drawings. After approval, the fees associated with the development will be calculated and attached to the public works permit. All fees are required to be paid in full at the time the Public Works Permit is issued, except Public Works Inspection fees. After project completion during the final plat application process, the Public Works Inspector will calculate the appropriate amount of inspection time to assess the developer. Before the final plat application is processed the developer must pay the relevant inspections fees and bond for any uncompleted improvements (as determined by the Public Works Director). Plazrs 1. Three sets of plans at 95% complete stage are to be submitted for• review by the Public Works Department 2. Once approval is achieved the Developer shall submit five sets of plans to the Public Works Department for construction records and inspection. 3. The Developer's Engineer shall document changes to the approved drawings made in the field. A mylar and digital copy of the final "as-built" drawings will be required before the final plat application is processed. Protection of Existiug Facilities The locations of existing facilities shall be shown on all applicable construction drawings for Public Works projects as follows: 1. The exact locations of underground facilities shall be verified in advance of any public works construction, in cooperation with the public or private utilities involved. P12 Pear731ossosa Retail Develnpv~ent PuGlic 6YorksStaffRepnrt Page #4 2. All existing underground and surface facilities shall be protected from damage during design and constnuction of public works projects. Any existing facilities not specifically designated for alteration or removals, which are damaged during construction, shall be restored or replaced to a "same as" or better than condition, at the expense of the Developer. 4. Suitable notice shall be given to all public and private utility companies in advance of construction for the purpose of protecting or relocating existing facilities. Water Connection Water system designs shall consider the existing water system, master plans, neighborhood plans and approved tentative plans. The Developer, Engineer and Contractor shall provide the necessary testing, exploration, survey and research to adequately design water system facilities, which will connect to and be a part of, or an extension of the City water system. 2. All requirements of the Oregon State Plumbing Specialty Code and the Oregon State Health Department, as they pertain to Public Water Systems, shall be strictly adhered to. 3. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific information regarding the design and construction of water system related components. Streets & Ti•af~c 1. The Developer's engineer should be aware that certain alternate street standards for the Transit Oriented District and Transit Oriented Corridor might apply to the design and construction of streets in specific areas of the City. These alternate standards are fully described in the Central Point TOD Design Requirements and Guidelines. Street designs shall consider the needs of people with disabilities and the aged, such as visually impaired pedestrians and mobility-impaired pedestrians. Every effort should be made to locate street hardware away from pedestrian locations and provide a surface free of bumps and cracks, which create safety and mobility problems. Smooth access ramps shall be provided where required. All designs shall conform to the current American Disabilities Act (ADA) or as adopted by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The determination of the pavement width and total right-of--way shall be based on the operational needs for each street as determined by a technical analysis. The technical analysis shall use demand volumes that reflect the maximum number of pedestrians, bicyclists, parked vehicles and motorized vehicle traffic expected when the area using the street is fully developed. Technical analysis shall take into consideration, ri~ansportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan, TOD, neighborhood plans, approved tentative plans P13 Pear Rlassotn Retail Developnteut PuGlic Works Staff Report Page #5 as well as existing commercial and residential developments. All street designs shall be coordinated with the design of other new or existing infrastructure. 2. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific information regarding the design and conshvction of street related components. 3. The City is currently in the process of completing and accepting the East Pine Con-idor Traffic Analysis, which could impact the classification of certain streets and project "build-out" traffic flows for this northeast portion of the City. The overall road classification and lane determination needs for Hamrick Road, East Pine Street, Beebe Road, Table Rock Road, Penninger Road, Gebhard Road, and the City of Central Point Interstate-five interchange to accommodate projected "build-out" conditions have not yet been determined by the City, Jackson County, or the Oregon Department of Transportation. Thus, additional master planning will be warranted once the East Pine Street Corridor Study is completed. However, it is projected that this additional master planning /traffic analysis will not be available for several more weeks. In an effort to expedite the completion of the East Pine Con~idor Traffic Analysis, the City has retained the services of JRH Transportation Engineering to evaluate existing data and finalize the recommendations for traffic mitigation measures. Prior to the involvement of JRH Transportation Engineering the City was relying on input from traffic engineering firm that currently represents the proposed developer. The conclusions presented by that firm were questioned after being received by ODOT's Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU). TPAU raised serious concerns about the adequacy of transportation facilities designed to serve a development with a scope and nature equal to the proposed development. The Public Works Department does not recommend acceptance of either the developer's traffic engineering conclusions or the conclusions of TPAU. Considering the potential severe traffic impacts given the development's location adjacent to Interstate 5 and the present congestion in the Pine Street Corridor, as well as the impact on the community and nearby existing and future commercial interests, Public Works recommends that this development be treated as a "conditional use" and that the use be conditioned to adhere to recommendations of the final East Pine Street Corridor Analysis. 4. Attached to this staff report is a copy ofa letter provided by JRH Transportation Engineering. At the request of the City, JRH is currently completing an independent traffic analysis of data provided by the developer's traffic consultant. The attached letter classifies the proposed development as conditional use based on its proximity to Interstate 5, and existing traffic congestion in the northeast portion of the City. 5. At a recent status meeting with JRH the City was provided with some preliminary recommendations which, if accepted, would seem to significantly improve traffic flow and provide multiple points of access to the proposed development. These do not appear to add unreasonable cost to the proposed development, yet appear to reduce traffic volumes on Pine Street, improve connectivity to other- streets, and enhance the desired P14 Pear ]3lossom Retail Development PuGlic Works Staff Report Page #6 concept of connected street systems in the surrounding area. These recommendation<. will be made as part of the final report presented by JRH Transportation Engineering. Public Works recommends that the Planning Commission consider these recommendations in its deliberations on the proposed development. Storm Draitz -Ground Water -Flood Plain It shall be the responsibility of the Developer's Engineer to investigate the drainage area of the project, including the drainage areas of the channels or storm sewers entering and leaving the project area. If a contiguous atmexed drainage area of given size exists, the engineer may use information that has formerly been established if it includes criteria for the drainage area at complete development under current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. If the City does not have such information, the engineer shall present satisfactory information to support his storm sewerage design. The engineer shall also be required to provide all hydrology and hydraulic computations to the Public Works Department that are necessary to substantiate the storm sewer design. The storm water sewer system design shall be in conformance with applicable provisions of Oregon DEQ, DSL and ODFW and United States COE and consistent with APWA Storm Water Phase II requirements. 2. The proposed development places improvements and structures within or alters the 100- year flood plain associated with Bear Creek. The development's location adjacent to and within the Bear Creek flood plain also indicates potentially adverse or hazardous characteristics due to flooding that would not normally be found in a use of a similar type and size located elsewhere in the City. It is recommended that the Developer be required to have a 100-year flood study analysis performed. The flood study must provide findings which indicate what affects the placement of the proposed improvements and structures have on the base flood elevation and flood zone boundary; and what affects the modification of the floodplain elevation and flood zone boundary have on the existing facilities and properties surrounding the proposed development. The Developer's engineer shall determine the existing base flood flow rates and the base flood evaluation contours; and illustrate the existing boundaries of the floodplain and floodway fora 100- year "base flood" storm event associated with Bear Creek through the affected properties. The construction drawings shall indicate the revised base flood elevation contours and boundaries of the floodplain and floodway expected to occur following the completion of any development within the identified flood zone (also referred to as the "Area of Special Flood Hazard"), including any affected up-gradient areas. The information determined in this study will also be used to determine minimum finished floor elevations for any structures that will be placed within the area of special flood hazard. The City of Central Point Public Works Standards & Specifications should be consulted for specific information regarding the design and construction of storm drain related components. P15 Pear l3(nssam Retail Developmet+t PuGlic R'orksS[ajfReport Page #7 4. This development proposes adding about 18 acres of impewious surface to the site. Discharging storm runoff directly to Bear Creek from this developed site could have the following impacts: :- Greater potential for flooding in Bear Creek al- Introduction of pollutants, such as oil and dirt from automobiles, directly to the creek ~- Increasing the temperature of the water in Bear Creek. The location adjacent to Bear Creek presents adverse water quality issues that would not be present in a similar development built elsewhere in the City. Currently the City's standards for storm drains do not require detention of storm water where the drainage facilities are adequate. This is correctly stated in the developer's report and the developer is apparently not planning to install detention facilities or water quality facilities to reduce potential negative impacts on the creek. However, the City is now subject to NPDES Phase II requirements. These requirements are designed to limit discharge of storm waters that tend to affect streams from either a quality or a quantity standpoint. The City has recently entered into agreement with Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVS) to manage the Phase II requirements. Written Input from RVS should be obtained relative to the storm water quality issues associated with this development. The City has not yet created standards for developers to comply with Phase II and does not have any way to evaluate the impacts of discharging storm water from such a large impervious surface directly into Bear Creek. It seems appropriate therefore, to request help from Oregon DEQ and/or such federal agencies as maybe able to provide information which the City and RVS can use to evaluate these environmental impacts from the proposed development. Should qualified State or Federal agencies recommend such measures as filters to improve water quality or detention basins to reduce flooding impacts, these recommendations should condition imposed on to the developer for incorporation into the plans. 5. If storm water detention practices, which involve the introduction of runoff to subsurface locations, are proposed, it is recommended that a thorough analysis be conducted to assure that pollutants will not be introduced into groundwater. The City is aware of shallow water wells in this vicinity, and the City was involved recently in legal actions relative to groundwater degradation near the proposed development site. The City might justifiably become involved in additional legal actions unless it insiststhat this matter be thoroughly evaluated by competent geologists and hydrologists. In consideration of the above storm water quality and quantity concerns Public Works recommends that this development be considered under the provisions of the City Code. Required Subrr:ittals I. All design, construction plans and specifications, and "as-built" drawings shall be prepared to acceptable professional standards as applicable. The Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals and conditions as may be required by other agencies including, but not limited to; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife P16 Pear Blassmra Retail Development Public Works Staff Report Page #8 (ODF&W), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE), affected irrigation districts, Rogue Valley Sewer Service (RVSS) and Jackson County Roads and Parks Services Department (JC Roads). 2. Fire District No. 3 must approve all streets and water improvement plans in writing prior to final review by City PWD. 3. During construction, any changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's Engineer to the City Public Works Department for approval prior to installation. P17 Attachment `D' JRH Transportation Correspondence Dated: 03/08/2004 ^' .., : ' :J !~ 'Rvx~ +:=---s a.Stfa,> ~ i. 3 , ,...:Y ~ ~ .•.c .c a 3n ~r x ~. .r rtiN" %Y>t'S t i,:_sn.•i*tgtM. r r'. -4s ~ .. _.. q.: ~ t` ~. r~.fu~..L.3a_,:: v -;:, r ......:,t3;v>.. .d' ...YL ..~3a.~~Y..i ' _ ' C N L t N B F n 5 I' 0. U I L 1. 1 fA A t~ A C I fl $ ~ 11 iA V V L I. $ D March 11, 2004 Tom Humphrey City of Central Point 955 South 2nd Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Pear Blossom Plaza Dear Tom: Ae y ou requested, I have revie~z~ed the yroposed Pear IIloscorn Plana development ko determine if it meets the requirements of Section 17.44.030 Conditional uses. Subparagraph 20 of the above-referenced portion of the Central Point Code requires Conditional Use Permits for "Permitted uses that are referred to the planning commission by city staff because they were found to exhibit potentially adverse or hazardous c}razacteristics not normally found in uses of a similar type and size". There are two reasons why the City staff would be justified in referring the issue to the Planning Commission meeting these criteria. The first reason is the scale of the development and its proximity to I-5 interchange exit 33. Preliminary findings from the East Pine Sheet Corridor analysis indicate that the supercenter is proposed at a location that is already congested and will become more so the day of opening. The concentration of traffic required to make a project of this size financially viable dictates that the extra scrutiny required in conditional use processes is important. The second reason why it would be prudent to treat the proposed development as a conditional use is the proposed traffic signal on East Pine Street. Placing a traffic signal to provide access to a single facility could preclude the installation of additional traffic signals elsewhere along East Pine. At least some attention should be paid to the community context of this development's location. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Very R. T-Iar~ksl P.E. e o ~ c c ~ a t 0 3 7. I u s l 4 ~ ~i S \' I LL~1G P 1' Lnf. ~\ I,UUP In:: 1..1.54 JUG"`/ t~ r, I li 1'I 1N C 6 Lv NI 1}'1L01 T f 2 0 1 P tl G C K L O f. G G O N 9 7 4 0 1 ~~rn..au~.r-a_aa~czu~::~r;at~:F~e-mc .-v:c~ :-~exxcv-..-a-aa;=x`-t_tease:v~:cs-_:~~.-s.~-~.a--.--~+.a~.~a-.v.~~^:ey T d ~~~L ~ d£Z ~ TO b0 T T ~eW Attachment `E' Oregon Department of Transportation Correspondence Dated: 10/27/2003 / O F ~ .._____ F ~ * ~ P ~/}/~/ ^^y~ at' ••: Lf ~g-59 rneodore R. Kulangos'ki, Gavemnr October 27, 2003 Tom Humphrey City of Central Point 155 South 2nd Street Central Point, OR RE: Requested Wal-Mart Analysis Dear Tom: Department of Transportation District 8 Office 200 Antelope Road White City, Oregon 97503 'Telephone (541) 774-6355 FAX (541) 774-6349 E-mail: Jolm.N.Vial@odotstate.or.us In regazds to the proposed Wa]-Mart development on East Pine Street, you requested ODOT complete a cursory analysis of the potential transportation system impacts resulting from this development. In response, our local traffic engineer reviewed the traffic impact study provided by Kittelson and Associates, our Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit (TPAU) completed a brief analysis and report, and our Interchange Design Unit completed conceptual plans for the Pine Sheet Interchange if and when reconstmction is necessary. Those reports, comments and maps are enclosed for your use. In brief smnmary, these reports and analysis's Found: Due to signal spacing, accesses and traffic volumes, the Pine Street interchange and E. Pine Street currently operate below desired levels. A 2023 future yeaz analysis shows that without improvements to the area, several intersections fail regazdless if a Wal-Mart is constructed or not. ~ The addition of the proposed Wal-Mart will cause the NB ramp terminal at Pine St. to fail on day of opening. E. Pine Street at Hamrick Rd. will also fail on day of opening. ~ A 2023 future year analysis including the proposed Wal-Mart, finds traffic cues on the NB Off- Raznp will back onto Interstate 5. Traffic cues will also extend from the Penninger Signal to Hamrick Road. Traffic engineers had difficulty finding an interchange design that could deal with predicted traffic volumes. The single point urban diamond operated well but has high impact to the local area. Please be clear that the enclosed materials do not constitute ODOT's formal comment on the proposed development. The enclosures are only being provided to assist the City of Central Point in your decision process and should not be considered ODOT comment for any land use planning or development review action. ODOT will provide formal comment for the record at a later date if we deem that necessary. 'lohn Vial District 8 Manager C: Terry Harbour, Region 3 Planning p 19 STATE OF OREGON Department of Transpm•tation Transportation Development Branch Mill Creek Office Park 555 13th Street Nl Salem, Oregon 97310 (503) 986- 4107 FAX (503) 986-4174 IN'I'L;ROFFICG MEMO File Code: Date: September 19, 2003 TO: Mike Arneson Region 3, Senior Designer FROM: V. Irene Toews Transportation Analyst SUB.TECT: Central Point Interchange, M.P. 32 Central Point, Oregon Jackson County The Traffic Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU) was asked by Region 3 to do a cursory evaluation of the Central Point Interchange on I-5. TPAU was asked to assess the queuing and volume to capacity (V/C) ratios for the ramp terminals and the key intersections in the interchange area with and without a proposed super Wal-Mart for the years 2003 and 2023. Currently, local street system traffic queues back on East Pine Street and blocks area intersections and the interchange ramp terminals. The queuing prevents the traffic from turning onto East Pine Street and causes vehicles to back-up on the local streets and on the I-5 interchange off-ramps. Accesses along both East and West Pine Street that are within the interchange area cause congestion and safety problems that affect interchange operations. Six concepts were analyzed for compliance with mobility standards and queuing concerns. Only the Single Point Urban Diamond (SPUD) concept allowed the interchange to operate within mobility standards with limited blocking of the ramps. This concept also involved relocating the adjacent local intersections away from the ramps (see Figures 4 and 10) and addressingthe private access points. Analysis limitations • The traffic volumes and lane configurations used for this analysis were taken from the East Pine Street Transportation Plan Technical Memos 1, 2, and 3, the PacLand, Central Point, Proposed Retail Pear Blossom Center Site Plan Review Application, and the Rogue Valley Council of Governments Regional EMME/2 traffic model. TPAU did not gather or develop the data used for this analysis. Centrat Point Interchange Anatysis P 210 September 2003 • The analysis results in this report were from a brief look at this situation and do not ___ _. reflect in-depth, exhaustive analysis. No weaving or merging analysis was done for this study, Evaluation Criteria The volume to capacity (V/C) maximum mobility standards for ramp terminals are - • 0.80 for existing and no-build configurations, under the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) • 0.75 for build concepts, under the Highway Design Manual mobility standards. Analysis Results The following configurations were evaluated for V/C ratios and queuing concerns as shown in Figures 1 through 10. Long queues on the interchange ramps, extending back to I-5, would be expected in all concepts except the Single Point Urban Diamond concept. 1. Existing, 2003 without Super Wal-Mart The V/C ratios for are within 1999 Oregon Highway Plan mobility standards; however, traffic queues back up and blocks adjacent intersections and interchange ramp terminals (See Figure 1). 2. Future No-Build, 2023 without Super Wal-Mart The interchange ramps would not be expected to be in compliance with1999 Oregon Highway Plan mobility standards. Queuing on East Pine Street from local intersections prevents traffic from turning onto East Pine Street and causes vehicles to back-up on the local streets and on the I-5 interchange off-ramps (See Figure 1). 3. Build 2003 and 2023 with a Super Wal-Mart The additional traffic generated by a Super Wal-Mart would be expected to degrade the operation of the interchange ramps and local intersections. The congestion and queuing in this area would be worse (See Figure 2). 4. Partial Cloverleaf Configuration in 2023 with a Super Wal-Mart This concept improves the V/C ratios for the ramp terminals, but queuing from local intersections would be expected to queue back and block the ramp terminal traffic (See Figure 3). 5. Single Point Urban Diamond (SPUD) 2023 with a Super Wal-Mart with adjacent local intersections relocated away from the rarnp Concept 5 allows the interchange to operate within mobility standards with limited blocking of the ramp terminal turn movements. This concept assumes that the access to the truck facility on Petminger South of Bast Pine Street will continue to be open. The northbound interchange off ramp and this intersection are too close together. 'the Central Point Interchange Analysis P21 September 2003 eastbound right-turn movement at South Penningcr and East Pine Street has the potential to queue back and block the northbound right turn movement from the northbound interchange ramp (See Figure 4). In General - Adding a super Wal-Mart will generate an additiona1200 vehicles to East Pine Street during the peak hour. This additional traffic was not planned for in the East Pine Street Transportation Plan. East Pine Street currently faces significant challenges with congestion, high V/C ratios, and queuing, and adding additional traffic will make this situation worse. Summary Currently, local street system traffic queues back and blocks the interchange ramp terminals and area intersections. This blocking prevents ramp traffic and local side street traffic from accessing East Pine Street. As long as this continues, the ramp traffic will have difficulty turning onto East Pine Street and long queues on the ramps, extending back to I-5 maybe experienced. Among the six configurations that were analyzed, only the Single Point Urban Diamond (SPUD) concept allowed the interchange to operate within mobility standards. This concept also involved relocating the adjacent local intersections away from the ramps. This analysis does not reflect a comprehensive analysis of this area and was only a cursory evaluation. TPAU did not develop the data used for this analysis. The traffic volumes and lane configurations were taken from the East Pine Street Transportation Plan Technical Memos 1, 2, 3, and 4, the PacLand, Central Point, Proposed Retail Pear Blossom Center Site Plan Review Application, and the Rogue Valley Council of Governments Regional EMME/2 traffic model. cc: Peter Schuytema, TPAU Dorothy Upton, TPAU Dan Dorrell, District 8 Ray Lapke, Region 3 Traffic Central Point Interchange Analysis P~ September 2003 Attachment `E' Oregon Department of Transportation Correspondence Dated: 10/27/2003 O F..~p.. ~.`< e~^ F i~J R N r~ s •. Theodott R. Kulongoski, Govemnr October 27, 2003 Tom Humphrey City of Central Point 155 South 2nd Street Central Point, OR RE: Requested Wal-Mart Analysis Dear Tom: Department of Transportation District 8 Office 200 Antelope Road White City, Oregon 97503 Telephone (541)774-6355 FAX (541)774-6349 l;-mail: John.N.Vial@odotstate.or.us In regards to the proposed Wal-Mart development on East Pine Street, you requested ODOT complete a cursory analysis of the potenfial transportation system impacts resulturg fiom this development. In response, our local traffic engineer reviewed the traffic impact study provided by Kittelson and Associates, our Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit (TPAU) completed a brief analysis and report, and our Interchange Design Unit completed conceptual plans for the Pine Street Interchange if and when reconstnrction is necessary. Those reports, comments and maps are enclosed for your use. In brief sumrnary, these reports and analysis's found: Due to signal spacing, accesses and traffic volumes, the Pine Street interchange and E. Pine Street currently operate below desired levels. A 2023 future year analysis shows that without improvements to the area, several intersections fail regardless if a Wal-Mart is constructed or not. ~ The addition of the proposed Wal-Mart will cause the NB ramp terminal at Pine St. to fail on day of opening. E. Pine Street at Hamrick Rd. will also fail on day of opening. A 2023 future year analysis including the proposed Wal-Mart, finds traffic cues on the NB Off- Ramp will back onto Interstate 5. Traffic cues will also extend frorn the Penninger Signal to Hamrick Road. Traffic engineers had difficulty fmding an interchange design that could deal with predicted traffic volumes. The single point urban diamond operated well but has high impact to the local area. Please be clear that the enclosed materials do not constitute ODOT's formal comment on the proposed development. The enclosures are only being provided to assist the City of Central Point in your decision process and should not be considered ODOT comment for any Zand use planning or development review action. ODOT will provide formal cornrnent for the record at a later date if we deem that necessary. Sohn Vial Distticti 8 Manager C: Terry Harbour', Region 3 Planning p j g STATE OF ORIsGON Department of Transportation Transportation Development Branch Mill Creek Office Park 555 13th Street NE Salem, Oregon 97310 (503) 986- 4107 FAX (503) 986-4174 IN'I'EROF['ICE MEMO Pife Code: Date: September 19, 2003 TO: Mike Arneson Region 3, Senior Designer FROM: V. Irene Toews Transportation Analyst SUBJECT: Central Point Interchange, M.P. 32 Central Point, Oregon Jackson County The Traffic Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU) was asked by Region 3 to do a cursory evaluation of the Central Point Interchange on I-5. TPAU was asked to assess the queuing and volume to capacity (V/C) ratios for the ramp terminals and the key intersections in the interchange area with and without a proposed super Wal-Mart for the years 2003 and 2023. Currently, local street system traffic queues back on East Pine Street and blocks area intersections and the interchange ramp terminals. The queuing prevents the traffic from turning onto East Pine Street and causes vehicles to back-up on the local streets and on the I-5 interchange off-ramps. Accesses along both East and West Pine Street that are within the interchange area cause congestion and safety problems that affect interchange operations. Six concepts were analyzed for compliance with mobility standards and queuing concerns. Only the Single Point Urban Diamond (SPUD) concept allowed the interchange to operate within mobility standards with limited blocking of the ramps. This concept also involved relocating the adjacent local intersections away from the ramps (see Figures 4 and 10) and addressing the private access points. Analysis limitations • The traffic volumes and lane configurations used for this analysis were taken from the East Pine Street Transportation Plan Technical Memos 1, 2, and 3, the PacLand, Central Point, Proposed Retail Pear Blossom Center Site Plan Review Application, and the Rogue Valley Council of Governments Regional EMME12 traffic model. TPAU did not gather or develop the data used for this analysis. Central Point Interchange Analysis P 210 September 2003 • The analysis results in this report were from a brief look at this sihtation and do not reflect in-depth, exhaustive analysis. No weaving or merging analysis was clone for this study. Evaluation Criteria The volume to capacity (V/C) maximum mobility standards for ramp terminals are - • 0.80 for existing and no-build configurations, under the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) • 0.75 for build concepts, under the Highway Design Manual mobility standards. Analysis Results The following configurations were evaluated for V/C ratios and queuing concerns as shown in Figures 1 through 10. Long queues on the interchange ramps, extending back to I-5, would be expected in all concepts except the Single Point Urban Diamond concept. 1. Existing, 2003 without Super Wal-Mart The V/C ratios for are within 1999 Oregon Highway Plan mobility standards; however, traffic queues back up and blocks adjacent intersections and interchange ramp terminals (See Figure 1). 2. Future No-Build, 2023 without Super Wal-Mart The interchange ramps would not be expected to be in compliance with1999 Oregon Highway Plan mobility standards. Queuing on East Pine Street from local intersections prevents traffic from turning onto East fine Street and causes vehicles to back-up on the local streets and on the I-5 interchange off-ramps (See Figure 1). 3. Build 2003 and 2023 with a Super Wal-Mart The additional traffic generated by a Super Wal-Mart would be expected to degrade the operation of the interchange ramps and local intersections. The congestion and queuing in this area would be worse (See Figure 2). 4. Partial Cloverleaf Configuration in 2023 with a Super Wal-Mart This concept improves the V/C ratios for the ramp terminals, but queuing from local intersections would be expected to queue back and block the ramp terminal traffic (See Figure 3). 5. Single Point Urban Diamond (SPUD) 2023 with a Super Wal-Mart with adjacent local intersections relocated away front the ramp Concept 5 allows the interchange to operate within mobility standards with limited blocking of the ramp terminal turn movements. This concept assumes that the access to the truck facility on Pemiinger South of East Pine Street will continue to be open. The northbound interchange off ramp and this intersection are too close together. T'he Central Point Interchange Analysis P 221. September 2003 eastbound right-turn movement at South Pemtinger and East Pine Street has the __ -- potential to queue back and block the northbound right turn movement from the northbound interchange ramp (See Pigure 4). In General - Adding a super Wal-Mart will generate an additiona1200 vehicles to East Pine Street during the peak hour. This additional traffic was not planned for in the East Pine Street Transportation Plan. East Pine Street currently faces significant challenges with congestion, high V/C ratios, and queuing, and adding additional traffic will make this situation worse. Summary Currently, local street system traffic queues back and blocks the interchange ramp terminals and area intersections. This blocking prevents ramp traffic and local side street traffic from accessing East Pine Street. As long as this continues, the ramp traffic will have difficulty turning onto East Pine Street and long queues on the ramps, extending back to I-5 may be experienced. Among the six configurations that were analyzed, only the Single Point Urban Diamond (SPUD) concept allowed the interchange to operate within tnobility standards. This concept also involved relocating the adjacent local intersections away from the ramps. This analysis does not reflect a comprehensive analysis of this area and was only a cursory evaluation. TPAU did not develop the data used for this analysis. The traffic volumes and lane configurations were taken from the East Pine Street Transportation Plan Technical Memos 1, 2, 3, and 4, the PacLand, Central Point, Proposed Retail Pear Blossom Center Site Plan Review Application, and the Rogue Valley Council of Governments Regional EMME/2 traffic model. cc: Peter Schuytema, TPAU Dorothy Upton, TPAU Dan Dorrell, District 8 Ray Lapke, Region 3 Traffic Central Point Interchange Analysis P ~ September 2003 -"~ with°u~''W Zp03~2p23 IG ~ t00 15 `-30 (140 (155) (20) 90 b70 ~~ 25 (it0) 1925) ~) 490) 575 85 ( (685) (t00) 320 55 (380. ,.4 (65) (6 c~x~ 145 80) 0 (2 5 (80) 5 It45 (14']5) ,~ 5 (< ) 200 735 ~(8b5) (360) Z$0 _- I P " . ~ ~ Beebe Rd. ,` ,1 7 ~ ~ Del=elopement ~.,,, _ ~ Site \\ .~. pine t• `~~ ~~d \r` '` 75 (105) 805 330 (55~) 985 11355) ;0) c5 (~5) 300 365 (g'tC (480) / ~a~~ NQ S~p7 6 KEY X I cam? ~°~-= ~ ~5 35 90) (t 10) 555~~ ( ttt ,µ 3 ~ ~0 (, 540) (5) (61?5) (<5) ~G ~ ~ (8251 t 5) 20 60 (5) (25) (~0)~~/ 70 45 ~~~ 5) 111 .. (gO,L .., 10 1t05~ (35) ~ 75 1555) 10) ( ( , t6~) ~J' 900 b0 15 ($0) ~(t10~ (10) 35 130 170 ('~(7` 225) (280) `` f ~(t45) (40)\ (215) R_.~,.. (5) (1285) (245) (195) (995) (5) (65) \~5) (225) ~~ .r"'-~ NFLFG'Y"Y4YSt5ll~tT .su, .•~ KtUhSPORTATIO. l _'Thomas ~~~T~_„~^~ oQ____.,__--- ~ ,w a~ ~axt 2 145 115 15~ (165) (150) (20) 91111115 765 ~ 25 (115) (1030) r 3"75 6b0 40 (515) ~~ (890) (105) ~(65) ( ~!~~~465) / 230 \ 50 (295) (80)~ 5 1265 (l0) (1"!25) 300 840 {405) (1135) 285 / ~_ a Beebe Rd. ~~ ~~ / ~. r~x pl~e~ ~St. ~ ~~a \r' (550 1620 75 (1595} (105) 995 (1320) \\\ 365 (550 (10) 405 /""(550 } II ;and ytan ~©R`~~ VO SCAI E K ~X-003 (~x~__. Gl ~ 130 '15 ~ ~ ~ (b90~~(130) (80) v 3 ^r' b05 25 705 '~ o r; (715) (30) (955) ^6 ~ ~ ~; w ~ ~ ~~~ (590} 30 (10} (3~5~ ~ (25) ( ~!y ~(14) 85 45~~~ 0) (100) ~5 15 1375 ~) (t 5) (1810} 75 ~_,_ 1150 15 (100) (1510) (20) ~70 205 ~~~ 55) 195} (240} 90 t50 330 ~'"(1~0) (150) (480) 1115 1100 ( AO} (>) (1430) 90 850 c5 (1051 (1105) (5) 5 100~t ~(~ 0} (120} (150) 11 4NItiG AtAbYStS Gyff .~~5Y0(iTATtO~ YLA-~' Tp~~ {JRE Fera-Thomas '~'IC7 pre aced By;C~ j V .1..'Coews l Reviewed Bv: ~nb ~ pine 5t. as shown ~n~--~^~". 2023 with Wal-Mart Partial Clover Interchange ~a Il l0 20 `-165 1~\ (P 1t5 T 1030 ~_ 35 1 890 515 toy 65 70~1~ 465 'J ~ 80 295 ]0 1725 -~ 1135 425 10 550 ~~j NORTH NO SCALE a 1510 5! 20 195 240~~ 55 X 690 130 80 v ~ ~t5 s0 955 ~ ~s 590 10 25 35 70~/~I0 480 +'120 150 \ 115 340 1430 1105 105 S 120 I50 ~ /~ 120 TRANSPORTATIOY PLANVI\G A~ALYS{$tiSIT Central Point Interchange w/partial clover •rj ~~ ~ "O ~~ ~ '~ t7 Beebe Rd. H ~ ` ~ ~ Q ~ o ~ •~, U o 3 ' WAL*MART' • ~ ~ , ~ ° E Pine`;t. ° i~ `tea ~~ ~~ ~ 5`50 SS 1 ~ S 40 100 1595'.-~ 90 1810 ~_ 100 1320 File : CCen~Pt. nb-03 Pre ared Bv:C. Fera-Thomas FICiLJRE 3 Date :7/29103 S Reviewed By: V• I. Toews~ 2023 with Wal-Mart Single Point Diamond Interchange NORTH NO SCALE .~ ~ ax `` ~ '." efJ , \ A ~~ ~ ~ Beebe Rd. ~~~f~ ` Q a 40 265 250 O~~ `~~ .~ 3 a 690 I`-130 80 190 ~_ ' WAL*MART' ~ o ~ 3~I0 ~~ 65 1030 ~ ~ ~ °~ 715 955 -. 890 750 ~ ~ Pirie'`St. ° ° ~ ~ ~~'' 590 10 20y,0 ~ 25 35 115 120~1~665 ° 1~ 70~~10 . ~~r ^~O .~ ~ ~~~~ .` 90 ~/ ~ 295 550 1740 , 1190 ' 1595 ~ 1810 105 40'5 _ - 100 X1240 ~_ 14301600 _~ 1135 195 425 ~ ~ 560 240~~75 550 ~3S ~ f`- 160 150 25 440 1430 1105 105 120 li0~~'^ 120 Central Point Interchange w/SPUD File : Cen Pt. nb 03 Prepared Bv: C. Fera-T~ F IGj ~RE~ 2023 with Wal-Mart Date :7/29/03 Reviewed Bv: y. i. Toevs NCIRTN r~wr `rvnrT TRANSPORTdTIO,IPLANVIVG AYALYSIS UVIT VKEliV1V UEYAK11r1L'lvl vD 11(t11vOCVnanaavi~ ----- File : Cen Pt. nb 03 Preyared By: C. Fera-Thomas Central Point Interchange, 2003 No Wal-Mart Queues ~------~ FIGL7RE 5, Date :7/29103 ~ Reviewed Bv: V. I. Toews 2003 without Wal-Mart Queues 2023 without Wal-Mart Queues . \ 1~ , ~ . e~~li, ~. d'e~~ ~ P' ` .` sso' ~ ~~ ioso' _ ~ioo' ~ azr~~'~ \ aoo' 300' a 300'~~425 'i I30RTH NO SCALE G1 isoo' ~' 900' I 450' E Pine St. , ~ .' ~ 42~' .` &ear Creek +` ---. TRA~SPORTATIOV PL~1Nti[FG n VdLYSiS li~II Developrr~ezlt 550' Site JItEGONAEPARTNtENTOFTRAN5YV1Kitaiivi. Fde.C~~ Preoa edgyC'Fera-Tho~ ~IG~_~RE ~.~- Date :7/29/03 R w d Bv: ~'• I. Tocws Central Point Interchange, 2023 No Wal-Mart ueues ~~ ~, ~ORTK ~ Nd S~AL£'. ~.---•--''''~-Mart Queues 2003 with ~' al ' ~ ~ . ,+ ~~ ~;~ - .. ger~ - ~ , 4' ~ .` ``• ,550 11 ~. ~~~*~~~ "~ too' '115' ~ . , 3pp~ aoo' s5o~ ~ Pane st' ` 1 475' 300' bOO' + 1 a25' ` ~ ~ 325' ~~ ~ ~. 6 -~- ,~ " - ~ Bear Creek TN~SYOR7 aTtO~ Yw.: ~ -.s". T [~j~ 7 .Thoma_:.. FIG"" _,,,..-.. iREG~AR~~ with wa ~~ Ce~~int Intex~ha~~e' VKBliV1V 11L'YAKllvlr,lvl Vr tt~. f.ivor vnan uvi. ---^- File : Cen Pt. nb 03 Prepared Bv: C. Fera-Thomas ~ FIGiJRE 8 Central Point Interchange, 2023 With Wal-Mart Queues ~---~ ~----- -~ Date :7/29/03 Reviewed Bv: V. I. Toews ~aRTx NO SCALE h W a~_Niax~ es 202 ~ovex Interchange Queu -paxtial c `, ~e n''~~ - .. Backs np ge ~ 1 onto (.5 T~ ~ ~ Q' 300' 6't5' -tso' $~$' 1550' `I~ ~ pine St. ~ 4 aas E , ti 1350' , , ~~ gacksuP ~ ° ~ ,, Bear Creek _ onto I-3 ~ "' "" ' j TRAtSYDATi.T[04 Yi.n.,, r.-.- .'Choma~. FIGCTf2"P_ .~ ve )RE~~Y~~L'~part~al clo Ce~ ~xr~ 1~1~'1axt. ~°eue5 Central Point Interchange w/SPUD Fite : Cen Pt. nb 03~ Prepared B7:C. Fera-Thomas ~------~ FIGL)ItE 1 2023 With Wal-Mart Queues pate: 7/29/03 ~ Reviewed By: V. I. Toee-s Technical Appendices Technical Analysis Data For The Central Point Interchange Memo Central Point Interchange Analysis Tec~i>~I Appendix SeptemUer 2003 Configurations Details 1. Existing, 2003 without Supcr Wal-Mart • Existing lane configurations and traffic control devices (See Figure 1) • 2003 existing weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes. Neither the super Wal-Mart nor any platmed developtnettt was included in the analysis. 2. Future No-Build, 2023 without Super Neal-Mart • Traffic control devices and latre configurations in accordance with the East Pine Street Transportation Plan (See Figure 1) • Traffic generated by planned developments outlined in the July 2003, Technical Memorandum #3, East Pine Street Transportation Plan, Future Traffic Forecast and Analysis of Future Conditions, by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. • Future increases in local and through traffic were added in accordance with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments Regional EMME/2 traffic model. • Traffic generated by a proposed super Wal-Mart is not included 3. Build, 2003 and 2023 with a Super Wal-Mart • Traffic control devices and lane configurations in accordance with the East Pine Street Transportation Plan (See Figure 2) • Week-day PM peak hour traffic volumes which includes traffic generated by planned developments outlined in the July 2003, Technical Memorandum #3, East Pine Street Transportation Plan, Future Traffic Forecast and Analysis of Future Conditions, by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. • 2023 Future increases in local and through traffic were added in accordance with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments Regional EMME/2 traffic model. • Traffic generated by a proposed super Wal-Mart was included. Central Point Interdtange Analysis Technicpl~l~pendix, Page 2 September 2003 4. & 5. Partial CloverleafConfigurcrtion crud Single Point Urbrxn Diamond (,SPUD) in 2023 with a Super Wal-Marl • Week-day PM peak hour traffic volumes which includes traffic generated by planned developments outlined in the July 2003,1'echnical Memorandum #3, East Pine Street Transportation Plan, Future Traffic Forecast and Analysis of Future Conditions, by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. (See Figures 3 and 4) • Future increases in local and through traffic were added in accordance with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments Regional EMME12 traffic model. • Traffic generated by a proposed super Wal-Mart was included. V/C Ratios Table 1, V/C Ratios -Existing 2003 and Future No-Build 2023, Without Proposed Super Wal-Mart (See Figure i) Existing 2003 and Future No-Build 2023 V/C Without Super Wal-Mart Cycle Length 95 and 100 Seconds. 2003 2023 10~"/Freeman 0.62 0.78 I-S SB Ramps 0.58 1 I-5 NB Ramps 0.69 I Penniz:ger 0.61 0.95 Development Site -- 0.92 Hamrick 0.74 0.80 Dark Shaded-V/C ratios, ramps are not in compliance with OHP mobility standards of 0.80 Lighter Shaded-V/C ratios, near or at capacity, probable congestion, delay, and queuing concerns. Central Point Interchange Analysis Technic11131'~ipendix, Page 3 September 2003 ___ Table-2, V/C Katios -Build 2003 ant12023 Wit/: a Super Wal-Mart (See Figure 2) Build 2003 and 2023 V/C Witl: Super Wal-Mart Cycle Length 2003 2023 90 Seconds. 10"'/Freeman 0.68 0.90 I-5 SB Ramps 0.76 I ' ' I-5 NB Ramps 1 ~ ' penninger 0.76 0.95 Development Site 0.79 1.00 Hamrick 0.95 1.19 Dark Shaded-V/C ratios, ramps are not incompliance with ODOT's I3ighway Design Manual Mobility Standards of 0.75 Lighter Shaded-V/C ratios, near or at capacity, probable congestion, delay, and queuing concerns. Central Point Interchange Analysis Technicgi~pendix, Page 4 September 2003 3. Table 3, V/C Ratios -Partial Cloverleaf 2023 with a Super Wal-Mart (Se e Fieure 3 2023 Partial Cloverleaf With Super Wal-Mart V/C Cycle Length 100 sec. 10°i/Preen:an 0.90 I-5 SB Ramps I I-5 NB Ramps I Penninger 0.95 Development Site 1.00 Hamrick 1.19 Dark Shaded-V/C ratios, ramps are not in compliance with ODOT's Highway Design Manual Mobility Standards. 0.75. Lighter Shaded-V/C ratios, near or at capacity, probable congestion, delay, and queuing concerns. Central Point Interchange Analysis Technic$l~,pendix, Page 5 September 2003 4. Table 4, V/C Ratios =Single Point Urban lliamontl (SPUD) 2023 with adjacent intersections relocated away from the ramp wit/t Super Wal-Mart (See Pigure 4) 2023 SPUD WitFe Super Wal-Mart V/C Cycle Length 100 sec. 7`h/10`h/Freeman 0.9G I-5 SB Ramps Kight Turns 0.54 at WB Through (Unsignalized) I-5 Lefts Signal 0.74 I-5 NB Ramps Right Turns 0.54 at NB Right (Unsignalized) Truck Stop Intersection 0.91 (Penninger Street south of East Pine Street) Penninger and Development Site 1.04 Hamrick Rd. 0.98 Lighter Shaded-V/C ratios, near or at capacity, probable congestion, delay, and queuing concerns. Note -Signalized intersection V/C ratios are reported for the entire intersection and unsignalized intersections V/C ratios are reported for the movement with the highest V/C ratio. Local intersection configuration would be the same as in the "2023 with Super Wal-Mart" concept except- 10`h Street and Penninger were moved away from the interchange and combined with the nearest adjacent local street on East Pine. A westbound double left turn lane was added at 7`I'/10`~' on East Pine An eastbound double left turn lane was added at the Development Street and Hamrick Street on East Pine. The 2023 with super Wal-Mart Concept with the SPUD asswnes that the access to the truck facility on Penninger South of East Pine Street will continue to be open. The Central Point Interchange Analysis Technic~~l~pendix, Page 6 September 2003 northbound interchange off ramp and this intersection are too close together. 7'hc eastbound right-turn movement at South Penninger and East Pine Street has the potential to queue back and block the northbound right turn movement from the northbound interchange ramp. Central Point Interchange Analysis 'I'echnic~(~pendix, Page 7 September 2003 OREGONDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 200 ANTELOPE ROAD WHITE CITY, OR 97503 PHONE (541) 774-6355 FAX (541)830-6408 DATE: October 26, 2003 TO: John Vial District 8 Manager FROM: Dan Dorrell ~~i ODOT Development Review and Traffic Engineer INTEROFFICE MEMO SUBJECT: Review of the June 26~' Kittelson and Associates Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the proposed Central Point Wal-Mart Here are the comments from District 8 Traffic and the Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit for the proposed Central Point Wal-Mart. The property that the Wal-Mart wants to locate on is designated commercial. Traffic models have difficulty predicting impacts for the type of intense regional commercial development as the proposed Wal-Mart. Commercial zones in models represent the median, taking a sample of all types of commercial uses, some high and some low trip generators. If all commercial properties were expected to develop to this intense of degree, the affected TSP's would have very large and expensive mitigations on the shelf ready to accommodate the impacts, but they don't. According to TPAU's study, the I-5 NB off ramp fails on day of opening. Some intersections in the study area operate at a level of service F in 2004, and many of the intersections are in close proximity to each other. The proposed Wal-Mart development adds over 200 vehicles compared to the original planned development during the peak hour. For these reasons, a future year analysis should be done to see if a plan amendment might be required for roadway widening. The T1S should include a 20-year, or Transportation System Plan(TSP) horizon year analysis of the transportation system for the following scenarios: A. Without the Wal-Mart B. With the Wal-Mart, but without proposed mitigation improvements C. With the Wal-Mart with the mitigation improvements 2. For all figures with volumes, ADT's for each link in the study area should be included. P42 a~... ..i%=. ~. nY`tr?c~' `~~~~ f 3. Page 2, Bullet 1 __ States that all study area intersections currently operate within acceptable operating standards. ODOT has local knowledge of the area and the following intersections have operational and queuing problems at present day: East Pine Street/10~' Street-Freeman Road East Pine Street/I-5 Southbound Rarnps East Pine Street/I-5 Northbound Ramps East Pine Street/Peninger Road East Pine Street/Hamrick Road East Pine Street/Table Rock Road 4. Page 2, Bullet 2 Rear-end related crashes will not necessarily be mitigated by improved signal progression. Other issues may cause these crashes. 5. Page 2, Bullet 4 Please refer to comment 3. 6. Page 3, Bullet 2 The two accesses closest to the East Pine Street/Hamrick Road intersection would be blocked from queue spillback with present day traffic. 7. Page 3, Bullet 3 TPAU has determined that the installation of a signal at this access is too close to the Hamrick/Bast Pine signal and will cause queues to spill out into and block the through lanes of East Pine Street. Pages 3, Bullets 4,5,6,7,8,9 Refer to comment 3 and add the following: The 2004 Total Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Analysis for the I-5 NB ramp terminal at East Pine Street shows an intersection V/C of 0.82, an EB left turn movement V/C of 0.82 and WB through V/C ratio of 0.82. This intersection V/C exceeds acceptable ODOT mobility standards, which indicates that there may be insufficient capacity. This can result in congestion, unacceptable delays, long queues, and unsafe conditions. 9. Page 3, Bullet 9 The capacity for the SB left turn movement at the west access on East Pine Street is 41 vehicles in the PM Peak Hour, indicating that there is not "plenty of capacity for this movement". This does however indicate that drivers will have difficulty finding a gap to turn left on to East Pine Street. This location will be safer and would function best as a right-in-right-out (BIRO). P43 .~,r -,. ~: ti s+ +~'\f i ~.: ; '..jn3v..d' __ 10. Page 3, Year 2004 Total Traffic Conditions - Queue lengths should be recalculated with methodology that does not assume random arrival such as HCM Appendix G. Existing and possible future signals are close enough that vehicles would be mostly arriving in platoons, not randomly. The queue lengths that were reported used 25' and 30' vehicle lengths. Vehicle lengths should reflect the high percentage of trucks, since this is a major truck route that multiple trucking companies use to access their switching yards. An even higher percentage of trucks travel from the I-5 ramps to Penninger Rd. for refueling at the Pilot Truck Stop. Queue length calculations did not account for upstream metering and overflow queuing resulting from the close proximity of the intersections. 11. Page 4, Bullet 1 Please refer to comment 7. 12. Page 4, Bullet 2 The recommended storage will not be sufficient to keep vehicles from queuing back and blocking the through lanes, and adjacent accesses to the site. 13. Page 4, Bullets 4,6,7 Due to safety concerns, designs for tapers without adequate storage, are not condoned by ODOT and many other transportation authorities. 14. Page 4, Bullet 6 ODOT has found that using a "Pork Chop" treatment to restrict a full access to a right- in-right-out (RIRO) does not work. Drivers tend to disregard them and drive through opposing traffic to make a left in, or left out. This type of facility has proven itself to be dangerous. Raised median treatments have proven to be the only positive barrier that truly restricts an access to RIRO movements. 15. Page 4, Bullet 9 Even present day volumes will exceed the recorrrrnended storage, and future volumes will cause severe congestion and back out into and block through traffic lanes. Also, please refer to comments 6, 10, and 12. 16. A scaled drawing needs to be submitted for Figure 2 to allow verification of access locations, and to assess the impacts they cause to adjacent roadways. 17. Page 11, Paragraph 3 Indicate why the RVCOG model was not used for the trip distribution. 18. Page 13, Paragraph I ODOT only has jurisdiction of the section of East Pine between the I-5 ramp terminals. P44 ,~ dpi M~ 19. Page 17, Paragraph 3 Level of Service is delay based and does not reve 1 all of the operational problems with an intersection. Because of the close proximity of the Peninger Street signal to the I-5 NB ramps signal there are operational probhn s and often queues will spill back out onto the NB off ramp. At peak hours the accesses on the south side of East Pine Street are often blocked from congestion in this area. The same situation occurs on East Pine Street at the 10'r Avenue/Freeman Road intersection. Again, signal spacing is too close to the SB ramps, and accesses on the north side of East Pine Sheet are often blocked during peak hours. Because of the high percentage of trucks and substandard signal spacing, traffic also backs down the SB I-5 off ramp past the gore on occasion. At the East Pine Street/Hamrick Road intersection there are existing capacity problems. During peak hours the EB left often takes more than one signal cycle, as does the SB right, which at times backs up to the north completely past the Pear Blossom Property. 20. Page 18, Paragraph I An MEV of<1.0 does not necessarily mean that there are not safety concerns. Crash rates should be compared with published crash rates for roadways of equivalent type. 21. Page 18, Paragraphs 1, and 3 Rear-end and related crashes will not necessarily be mitigated by improved signal progression. Other issues may cause these crashes, such as accesses that require vehicles to weave across two through lanes and a left turn refuge, as is the case here. 22. Page 18, Paragraph 2 While it is true that the realignment of Freeman Road helped conditions along the East Pine corridor, the added traffic from developments in the area have consumed much of the capacity from this realignment project. Also please refer to comment 19. 23. Page 18, Paragraph 4 ODOT and Jackson County traffic engineering staffs question the assumption that such a large portion of traffic will reroute to Table Rock Road from Hamrick Rd. following the completion of the Table Rock Road improvement project. Considering the high volumes of traffic at the Table Rock RoadlEast Pine Street intersection, regardless of capacity improvements on Table Rock Road, people tend to avoid large and busy intersections if possible. ODOT has already received scoping requests for substantial developments south of East Pine Street from Hamrick Road to the east of Table Rock Road. We are also aware of the consideration of a proposed signal to be located between Hamrick Road and Table Rock Road on East Pine Street. The added congestion created from additional traffic due to these developments, and the added delay from a possible additional signal would certainly make the Harm-ick Road route more appealing. P45 c~,.... ~~:a,~ :. 1`C- ~ r k ..b"i'S •~ ~ 4 ` ~~~i~l 24. Page 22, Paragraph 3 Please state whether the existing lane configuration or the 2004 proposed lane configuration and traffic control devices were used for the LOS analysis of the background traffic. In order to be incompliance with FHWA`s request that the ramp terminal and the mainline mobility standard be the same, mobility standards for the build scenario for I-5 NB and SB ramps would be 0.75 as listed in ODOT's Highway Design Manual. The mobility standards listed in ODOT's Highway Design Manual are used for build scenarios. 25. Page 22, Paragraph 5 Include an analysis of the study area for "Traffic Operations -Future Year with the Development." See ODOT Development Review Guidelines, 3.3.20 "This should include any transportation system improvement anticipated to be completed by the represented year. This should not include improvements anticipated to be constructed as mitigation for the proposed development." Therefore, t}ris analysis should not include the proposed signalized intersection west of Hamrick Road on East Pine Street. 26. Figure 10 The ODOT STIP project for a double left-tum lane and a channelized right tum lane for the SB I-5 ramp terninal at East Pine Street should be reflected in this figure and in the analysis for the Total Traffic Conditions. Assumed lane configurations show single left-turn lanes at Hamrick, the proposed development signal, and the SB I-5 ramp terminal with turn volumes of over 300 vph in the PM Peak. When volumes exceed 300 vph, dual left turn lanes should be considered. 27. Page 28, Paragraph 3 Please refer to comment 17. 28. Page 28, Paragraph 4 Please refer to corrunent 3. 29. Figure 16 There are five left turn movements that are over 300 trips in the PM peak hour. Dual left turn lane are usually considered or analyzed when the volumes exceed 300. 30. Page 36, Paragraph 3 The capacity for the SB left turn movement is only 41 vehicles in the PM peak, which is not "abundant capacity" for this movement. This indicates that a driver will most likely have difficulty fmding a safe gap to turn left onto East Pine Street. Raised median installation should be considered since this access will function as a RIRO anyway during the peak hours. P46 .~•a~-~ .,. a~~~ > '~' E :~\ ,,;, ~4~~~54./ 31. Page 37, Under Queuing Analysis Please refer to comment 10. 32. Page 38, Table 5 Indicate why the queue lengths reported in the Traf6x worksheets, which are generally longer than those reported in Table 5, were not used. Recalculate queue lengths with methodology that does not assume random arrival, such as HCM Appendix G. Existing and platmed signals are close enough that vehicles would largely be arriving in platoons, not random arrivals. The queue lengths that were reported used 25 ft and 30 ft vehicle lengths. Vehicle lengths need to reflect the high percentage of heavy vehicles. Queue length calculations did not account for upstream metering and overflow queuing resulting from the close proximity of the intersections. Include queue lengths for eastbound left and through movements for East Pine St.IPeninger Rd. and southbound I-5 ramp terminal so that impacts between the two intersections can be evaluated. Include the queue lengths for the northbound I-5 ramp termurals and 10's/ Freeman Rd. so that impacts with adjacent intersections can be evaluated. 33. Page 39, Paragraph 2 Back to back left turn lanes would be needed to accoimnodate the expected left-turn queues and necessary tapers. This type of left turn configuration is not desirable due to lank of design flexibility. 34. Pages 39 and 40, Paragraphs 4 and 2, respectively Please refer to comment 13. 35. Page 42, Paragraph 2, and 3 Please refer to comments 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 19. 36. Page 42, Paragraph 5 Please refer to comments 3, and 19. 37. Page 43, Paragraph 2 Issues with the accesses closest to the Hamrick Road/East Pine Street intersection, and the western access on East Pine Street, and the proposed signal are addressed with the following comments: 6, 7, 12, 15, and 16. 38. Page 43, Paragraph 3 Please refer to continent 7. -~.:,. w ~`, ~. 39. Page 43, Paragraph 4 The 2004 Total Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour analysis for Harmick at E. Pine Street shows an intersection V/C of 0.90, including an eastbound left turn movement V/C of 0.86 and westbound through and right turn V/C ratios of 0.90. This indicates that there is insufficient capacity for this urtersection, which may result in congestion, unacceptable delays, long queues, and unsafe conditions. Please also refer to comments 3, and 8. 40. Pagc 43 ODOT wants to clarify statements tluoughout the TIS about "abundant" capacity. Three intersections are mentioned on this page as having "sufficient" or "plenty" of capacity, even though they have a level of service "F". For illustration purposes, the Level of Service (LOS) table for a Two Way Stop Control (TWSC) is shown below. LOS Average Total Delay In Seconds A less than or equal to 5 B greater than 5 but less than or equal to 10 C greater than 10 but less than or equal to 20 D greater than 20 but less than or equal to 30 E greater than 30 but less than or equal to 45 F greater than 45 LOS quantifies the degree of comfort afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. LOS includes such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles. It was developed to quantify the quality of service of transportation facilities. LOS ranges from A to F, with A indicating the most desirable condition and F indicating an unsatisfactory condition. Therefore, regardless of capacity, all three of these intersections are considered to be unsatisfactory according to their LOS. The expectation of drivers is to have some substantial delay at a signalized intersection, because they know they will get their turn. But at a stop sign, the expectation for delay is less, because people begin to question whether they will ever get a chance to proceed. This can often cause drivers to take dangerously short gaps in traffic to get onto the mainline facility. The statement that there is "substantial" or "plenty" of capacity, is not an accurate comment when the LOS is poor. The only valid meanirrg that comes fi-om this statement is that cars may not back up to far into the parking lot, only if they have random arrival, and don't an-ive in platoons. If even a small amount of cars happen to arrive at one of these intersections at the same time, the delay will increase dramatically P48 j3.Y~~m~-~~.'A~. Yp`... o: Y: '11~/ to exceedmgly long periods of tine and poor conditions, possibly causing drivers to take an even less acceptable gap to merge with traffic. 41. Page 44, Paragraph 2 Please refer to comment G, 7, 10, and 15. 42. Page 44, Paragraph 4 Please refer to comment 13. 43. Page 44, Paragraph 5 Please refer to comments 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, and 32. 44. Page 44, Paragraph 7 Please refer to comments 13, and 14. 45. Page 44, Paragraph 8 Please refer to comment 10. 46. Page 44, Paragraph 9 Please refer to comments 6, I0, 12, and 15. If I can be of any further assistance, don't hesitate to call me at 774-6354. ~~..... dir.'- ~n0~ ~~,. P49 ':;4`;~ °eJp3 ai Attachment `F' Rogue Valley Council of Governments Correspondence Dated: 03/10/200 ~l V V L COUNCIL O! GOV[FN I.IENTS The Rogue Palley Cowtcil of Goverruuen[s is a volwua+y association of local governments in Jackson and Josephine Counties. Member Jurisdictions Jackson County Josephine County Ashland Butte Falls Cave Junction Central Point Eagle Point Gold Hill Grants Pass 7acksonville Medford Phoenix Rogue River Shady Covc Talent Associate Members BcvsA bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority Fire Dist. N4 Jackson Soil & Water Conservation District RVTD Rogue Valley Transportation District SOREDI Southcm Oregon Regional Economic Development, Inc. Applegate Valley RFPD i19 Pax: 541-<ti4-7927 rea C.'ode: 541 Wate>^ Resoul°ces Rogue Valley Council of Governments To call locally: Central Point 664-6674 • Medford 779-6785 • Grants Pass 474-5947 March 10, 2004 Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director City of Central Point 155 S. Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: Proposed Retail Pear Blossom Plaza Site Plan Review (Wal-Mart) Application, December 17, 2003 Dear Mr. Humphrey: At your request, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments Water Resources Program has reviewed the Wal-Mart application. As you know, we are involved in many projects and processes that focus on stormwater management and water quality in the Bear Creek watershed. We would like to offer the foliow-ing comments on the Preliminary Stormwater Management Report section. of the Wal-Mart application. The addition of 18.26 acres of impervious surfaces near Bear Creek creates the potential for adverse impacts to the creek. In general, the lack of any stormwater detention for over 795,000 square feet of impervious surfaces potentially creates hazardous conditions for aquatic life downstream of the proposed development due to increased erosion. We question the rationale of the applicant when they state that, "By releasing stormwater without detention, the peak flow for the entire drainage basin will likely be decreased..." Without a downstream trydrologic analysis, the applicant's assertion is questionable. The existing land cover, although lacking in impervious surfaces, presently contributes its stormwater runoff directly to the creek. From information presented by the applicant, we estimate that the proposed development would increase nmoff from the site by greater than a factor of five in a 10-year storm event. In addition, the lack of any water quality treatment facilities other than three sediment manholes would eliminate the opportunity to remove stormwater pollutants before they flow into the stream. As you know the City of Central Point is under pressure to comply with a variety of environmental regulations. The City very recently submitted their NPDES Phase II stormwater program to DEQ, in which they commited to new, stringent construction and post-constmetion stormwater management measures. The City Address 155 N. First Stree 5 Mail: P.O Box 3275 • Central Point, OR 97502 -- will also be facing increase TMDL requirementswithiu the next two years, and Bear Creek supports a population of the ESA-listed Coho salmon, as well as Chinook and steelhead. These increasingly restrictive regulatory requirements will require the City to minimize the adverse impacts to Bear Creek from all developments. "fo address these issues we recommend consideration of the following: • The applicant should include detention facilities in the development adequate to detain 40-50 percent of the two-year storm (0.8-1.0 inches). The detention facilities could include detention pond(s), parking lot bioswales and stormwater planters. Ideally, runoff from the development should mimic natural conditions as closely as practicable. • The applicant should install water quality treatment devices in addition to the "natrual stormwater biofilters" listed above. At a minimum, oil/water separators should be installed to reduce the amount of petroleum products that will wash off the parking lot surface into the creek. Other proprietary stormwater devices are effective in removing pollutants from runoff, and could be installed in addition to the oil/water separators. • An erosion control permit (1200-C) will need to be obtained from DEQ. This permit requires the preparation of a detailed erosion prevention and sediment control plan. • During periods of frequent and heavy precipitation, exposed soil stockpiles should be covered when not in use, or every night when in use, rather than within 7 days of exposure, as specified in the preliminary stormwater management report. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this significant proposal. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Craig Harper Program Manager Cc: Bill Meyers, DEQ P51 Attachment `G' DEQ -Water Quality Division Correspondence Dated: 03/10/2004 Tom Humphrey Plaiming Director City of Central Point I55 S Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 March 10, 2004 Re: Pear Blossom Plaza Preliminary Stormwater Management Report The City of Central Point is located within the Medford Urbanized Area and, therefore, has been designated by DEQ and federal regulations as a regulated "Phase II" municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The City has applied for an NPDES permit and has recently submitted its required storm water management plan. One of the minimum measures Phase II MS4s are required to address is the development and implementation of a set ofpost-construction storm water standards for new and re-development. Although the City of Central Point's MS4 permit has not yet been issued, DEQ encourages the City to include some post-construction storm water conditions in any prospective approval of the proposed Pear Blossom Plaza retail site. This new development will encompass over 21 acres, 18 of which will be impervious surfaces. The water quality impacts of installing 18 acres of paved parking area and impervious roof structures in such close proximity to Bear Creek are potentially quite significant. The petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and other pollutants associated with vehicle usage will invariably be carried to the creek through storm water run-off, thus degrading water quality. Bear Creek is currently water quality limited. At certain times of the year the stream exceeds state water quality standards for temperature, E-Coli, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, and phosphorus concentrations. Excessive sedimentation is an issue in the watershed as well. Bear Creek is also a fish bearing stream that drains into core Cold- water fish habit in the Rogue River. In the last several years considerable community effort has been put forth to restore and enhance the riparian corridor along Bear Creek, to improve the creek's water quality, and to restore fish access and habitat in the watershed. Any new construction projects, especially of this magnitude should serve to further the efforts of the conununity by preserving water quality and enhancing fish habitat. As currently designed the proposed project does not adequately address these issues. Based on a review of the storm water management report from the project developer, DEQ staff noted that the only storm water pollution prevention and treatment measures proposed were catch basins with standard sediment traps and a relatively small amount of landscaping. It is unlikely that such minimal measures would comply with any post-construction storm water standards established by permitted MS4 jurisdictions. Therefore, in anticipation of its Phase II MS4 permit requirements, DEQ encourages the City of Central Point to require the project developer to incorporate a more robust set of storm water treatment and/or infiltration measures into the site design. Possible post-construction best management practices (BMPs) to consider include, but are not limited to, the following: Natural Treatment Svstems • Vegetated Bioswales / rilter Strips - An area of vegetation, or shallow vegetated ditches, used to remove sediment and other pollutants prior to discharge to surface waters. Swales and strips are often used for parking lots. P52 -- Infiltration Trenches -Shallow ditch, 2-10 feet deep and backfilled with stone, where runoff slowly infiltrates into the subsoil. • Constructed Wetlands and Wet Ponds -Detention basins with vegetation designed to treat runoff through adsorption, plant uptake and filtration. • Stream! Wetland Buffer-Buffers limit sedimentation and erosion, provide shade, contribute to woody debris for stream health, incorporate floodways and allow for natural stream channel improvement. Mechanical Treatment Systems Porous Paving -Pervious paving system that allows for infiltration of stomr water into subsoil, and used primarily for parking lots, sidewalks, and driveways. Catch Basin Inserts - A wide variety inserts and filter media are now available that capture a wide range of pollutants, including petroleuzn hydrocarbons and metals. Roof Downspout Drain -consists of small trenches, sometimes filled with gravel that collect and filter roof run-off. DEQ believes that one or more of these various measures could be appropriate for the City to require of Pear Blossom Plaza development. Please contact DEQ if you have any additional questions or need further assistance. Kevin Masterson Water Quality Division Surface Water Management 811 SW 6'" Ave Portland, OR 97204 Bill Meyers Rogue Basin Coordinator 201 West Main Medford, OR 97501 P53 Attachment `H' Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Correspondence Dated: 03 f 11 2004 Lisa N[organ From: David Haight [David.R.Haight@DFW.STATE.OR.US~ Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:01 PM To: Lisa Morgan Subject: Stormwater Management Report for the Pear Blossom Plaza Lisa, I reviewed the Preliminary Stormwater Management Report for the proposed Pear Blossom Plaza. The Oregon Department of fish and Wildlife does not directly regulate discharge of stormwater. We rely on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to protect the water quality in the state. I do have concerns about the effects this project will have on the water quality and the flow regime in Bear Creek. The report stated they will create 18.26 acres of impervious surface and that they do not plan to create any detention structures. This will accelerate runoff and contribute to the problem of widely fluctuating flows in Bear Creek. The report stated that this project will reduce peak flows in Bear Creek by discharging water ahead of the peak; however, they did not provide data to substantiate this claim. The typical result of the cumulative effects of creating a lot of impervious surface in a watershed is to increase peak flows and reduce flows during dry periods. This is very detrimental to the fish populations in the watershed. I feel the applicant should be required to either incorporate detention structures that significantly spread out the discharge or conclusively demonstrate that their proposal will not adversely affect Bear Creek. David R. Haight Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife 1495 E Gregory Road Central Point, OR 97502 591-826-8774 P5~ Attachment `I' Galardi Consulting Memorandum Dated: 03/07/2004 MEMORANDUM Review of Economic and Downtown Impact Analyses for Central Point, Oregon PREPARED FOR: Tom Humplu'ey, Planning Director, City of Central Point PREPARED BY: Debbie Galardi, Galardi Consulting DATE: March 7, 2004 Introduction Per your request, I have completed a review of the "Ecottornic and Dozontozvtt Impact Analyses for Central Point, Oregon', November 11, 2003 (Ferrarini & Associates, Inc.). The scope of my review was to analyze the assumptions and conclusions reported by Ferrarini; it did not include independent verification or analysis of data included in the report. The primary findings and conclusions of the Ferrarini report are summarized below: • The downtown business climate has improved recently (as evidenced by low vacancy rates) due to: o The City's revitalization plan o An increase hl "buying power' (resulting from steady population growth and real increases in discretionary income) • The proposed Wal-Mart development will not have a significant negative impact on downtown businesses based on the following assumptions: o The new store creates additional direct competition with only two existing businesses -Ray's Grocery and Pharmacy Express. There is already a Wal-Mart within 4 miles of the existing development. The new store will only add a grocery section. o This competition wIll not necessarily result in closure of these existing businesses if they can differentiate themselves through products, service, and pricing. These businesses also have the advantage of being locatedul close proximity to the population base. • The long-term impact is assumed to be positive, due to the following: o Additional job creation and payroll during and after construction (based on IrnI'lan analysis). o Customers drawn from a wider area to shop at existing businesses. o The store will occupy space that otherwise may be developed in a less favorable manner to local businesses (i.e., group of small tenants}. Galardi Consulting, LLC p5~i 3/8704 General Analysis The Ferrarini study purports "... to analyze the impact that the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter at Pine and I-lamrick would have on businesses located in Downtown Central Point ..:', but it never directly address these potential impacts. It talks about the local Albertsons in Medford and Central Point and of Ray's, Food-4-Less, and Thunderbird, but not Wal-Mart. For example in Table 1 (and Appendix C) it never reveals Wal-Mart's pricing for comparable goods. It Ict's you infer that Wal-Mart will have prices higher than the local stores, but that runs contrary to their national advertising. The marketing gambit with the few specialty items Wal-Mart might carry is to advertise them heavily, azid to price them high. Customers already in the store will purchase these few specialty items to avoid flee cost of stopping at Ray's, for example, to purchase the same item for 15% to 20% less. The low prices Ferrarini finds at Food 4 Less and Thunderbird may simply reflect the deep discounting these stores have to make in order to stay in business - flreir profit margins become less than average for comparable stores. The selection of items compared is also interesting. The list excludes paper products, meats and fish, fresh, carried and frozen vegetables, and housewares. Ferrarini s list is probably not representative of an average household's total shopping basket. Ferrarini is willing to make the local stores "...alter their merchandise, prices, and service Ievels ..." [Ferrarini page 5 #15] to face Wal-Mart competition. Yes, these small stores will have to change their product mix (merchandise) to products Wal-Mart does not carry-low-volume, slow-turnover items with high prices-and they will have to cut prices to below Wal-Mart's prices for items Wal-Mart does carry. Perhaps most significant to small mom-and-pop businesses is the need to stay open more hours per week to catch the few late night or early morning customers. Changing product mix means that some customers simply will not shop at the small stores if they cannot pick up most of what they need in one stop. Part of a shopper s expense is time spent stopping at and Ieaving a store. A two-stop shopping trip may take twice as long as a one-stop trip. Hence, as the small stores reduce their range of merchandise offerings, more customers will find it cheaper to make one stop at Wal- Mart. There the shopper can pickup 95 percent of what they need, sans a few specialty items, and forgo those things not available at Wal-Mart. This description of shopping is the root economic advantage of discount retailing. And it has proven to be very effective. Wal-Mart wori t offer to change its behavior in merchandising, pricing, or service levels as it asks of its competitors, because Wal-Mart would lose profit margin if it did. The area selected for review also impacts the results. The Downtown, as Ferrarini makes clear, purports to have few direct competitors to Wal-Mart. If the impact analysis addressed all shopping areas in Central Point and its immediate economic environs (which would include Albertsons), the impacts would likely be far greater-more direct competitors would be found. Galardi Consulting, LLC P5~i 3/8/04 Finally, the Ferrarini study cites an ImPlan analysis that indicates additional job creation and payroll during and after construction. However, it is not clear from the report, how flte model was managed to account for reallocation of jobs. It seems to conclude that all of the jobs associated with Wal-Mart are new to the economy, as opposed to being reallocated from within the existing employment base. It seems plausible that the local economy could actually see a net reduction in jobs and payroll if some specialty stores go out of business. Another Perspective In evaluating the Ferrarini findings, it is also helpful to consider other studies that have been conducted on the same subject. Ferrarini cites national studies which support the position that Wal-Mart stores do not have a negative impact on local communities. Other studies have shown that there are, in fact impacts to local businesses. One such study reviewed for this analysis was "Impact ofWal-Mart Stores on Iozaa Communities: 1983-93" by Kenneth Stoner. This study analyzed impacts on local communities of Wal-Mart stores over a 10-year period. The findings of that analysis, which are potentially relevant to Central Point, including the following: 1. Local retail sales increased at a faster rate than the state average, following development of a Wal-Mart store, suggesting that the store did in fact attract customers from a larger area (at least initially). 2. However, increases in sales were not always maintained over the long-term, suggesting in part, that initial increases were the result of the "curiosity factor." Another significant factor seems to be the saturation of large format retailers in the market. According to Stone: "...the discounters usually saturate the market with their stores which causes some towns' trade areas to shrink to smaller size than before?" 3. Impacts on specific business types vary, with some potential "winners" and some "losers". Irt general, stores with specialized products/services could be potential winners assuming that the market area is broadened. On the other hand, stores with directly competing products/services are the potential losers (unless they can change their way of doing business). Stone's study identified the types of businesses in each category as follows: o Potential winners: home furnishing stores, eating & drinking places, and high end apparel stores o Potential losers: specialty stores (e.g., drug stores, sporting goods, jewelry stores, gift and novelty shops), building materials, and food stores 4. Buying habits of consumers changed -more purchases were made form department stores (with discount department stores the assumed primary beneficiary), and purchases from local merchants decreased. ~ Stone, Kenneth, "Impact o1 Wal-Mart Sfores on Iowa Communities 198393"; Ecronomic Development Review, Spring 1995 (pgs 60-69). 21bid, pg. 69 Galardi Consulting, L-LC P5~ 3/8/04 For Central Point, these findings viewed in the context of the Perrarini report suggest The proximity of other Wal-Mart stores in the Rogue Valley may impact the extent that existing businesses will benefit from an expansion of the market area. The existing businesses that wilt compete with Wal-Mart may be more than the two grocery/pharmacy stores. There are oflrer specialty retail stores in the downtown area with which Wal-Mart may compete. The Perrarini report suggests that because a Wal-Mart store already exists in the area, this does not represent new competition. However, it is unclear how dre change in location will impact some of these other stores which provide competing products/services. In general, Iowa (unlike Central Point) experienced static growth during the period analyzed. The Ferrarini report suggests that the expansion of buying power resulting from an increase in population coupled wifll in increase in real discretionary income in Central Point is increasing the "purchasing pie', such that a portion of what local business may "lose' to Wal-Martin terms of purchases of existing consumers, may be made up flrrough new consumer spending in the area. This depends, in part on the relative spending patterns of new consumers. Galardi Consulting, LLC P5k3 318104 Attachment `J' Citizen Advisory Committee Agenda For: March 17, 2004